Re: ssl passphrase callback

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ssl passphrase callback
Date: 2019-12-06 23:20:54
Message-ID: 19596.1575674454@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I've just been looking at that. load_external_function() doesn't
> actually do anything V1-ish with the value, it just looks up the symbol
> using dlsym and returns it cast to a PGFunction. Is there any reason I
> can't just use that and cast it again to the callback function type?

TBH, I think this entire discussion has gone seriously off into the
weeds. The original design where we just let a shared_preload_library
function get into a hook is far superior to any of the overcomplicated
kluges that are being discussed now. Something like this, for instance:

>>> ssl_passphrase_command='#superlib.so,my_rot13_passphrase'

makes me positively ill. It introduces problems that we don't need,
like how to parse out the sub-parts of the string, and the
quoting/escaping issues that will come along with that; while from
the user's perspective it replaces a simple and intellectually-coherent
variable definition with an unintelligible mess.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-12-06 23:31:45 Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test
Previous Message Ranier Vilela 2019-12-06 23:18:14 RE: [Proposal] Level4 Warnings show many shadow vars